List the mistakes/wrong choices of...

[cybrsage]

You mean the GOP?

No, I mean zsdersw

 

[zsdersw]

I notice you still refuse to do what you want others to do.

I notice that you continue to divert attention away from you.

And if you wish to call me what I am, go ahead and use "He who shows others I refuse to do what I want others to do". It fits perfectly for you in this thread.

Your lack of criticism for Republicans fits you perfectly in every thread.

EDIT: You know, the easy way to stop me from pointing out that you are not doing what you want others to do is to actually DO what you want others to do. In this case, it would be posting the mistakes/wrong choices of... in the thread where you want OTHERS to post the mistakes/wrong choices of...

I don't really care what you point out. It doesn't make you any less of a Republican shill unless/until you post the things they've done (or not done) that you think are mistakes/wrong choices.

But I will offer you this...

I promise to amend the OP of this thread if you make either a substantial post in this thread detailing the mistakes/wrong choices of Republicans and Democrats or create a new thread in which you do the same.

 

[cybrsage]

I notice that you continue to divert attention away from you.

Because you keep trying to MOVE it to me. The spotlight is on you and will remain there.

I promise to amend the OP of this thread if you make either a substantial post in this thread detailing the mistakes/wrong choices of Republicans and Democrats or create a new thread in which you do the same.

I certainly will AFTER you first do what you stated you want others to do. Not a problem at all.

I have a meeting now, so it could be a little bit.

 

[zsdersw]

Because you keep trying to MOVE it to me. The spotlight is on you and will remain there.

Not really... no one is paying any attention to your posts about me in this thread.

I certainly will AFTER you first do what you stated you want others to do. Not a problem at all.

That's not the offer I made. The question I have to answer is: Do I want to see you criticize Republicans enough to accept your different offer? Eh... not really. My willingness to criticize both parties is not in dispute like yours is, so if you at all want to settle that dispute you'll do so.

I have a meeting now, so it could be a little bit.

Fantastic. I await your reply.

 

[soundforbjt]

NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steigall were the worst in recent history by dems. That and believing they could compromise/work with the current repubs in Congress.

 

[cybrsage]

Not really... no one is paying any attention to your posts about me in this thread.

This is obviously untrue, as you are repeatedly replying to them. Unless you consider yourself a no one.

That's not the offer I made. The question I have to answer is: Do I want to see you criticize Republicans enough to accept your different offer? Eh... not really. My willingness to criticize both parties is not in dispute like yours is, so if you at all want to settle that dispute you'll do so.

You keep trying to shift the discussion. It is about YOU not doing what YOU want others to do. YOU want people to post mistakes/etc. in this thread and YOU did not do it YOURSELF.

I know you want to keep shifting the coversation away from this point, but you will not be successful.

Fantastic. I await your reply.

Will reply after checking your first post edit.

EDIT: You STILL have not done what you expect me to do. You refuse to do what you expect others to do...which is list the mistakes/etc. in this thread.

 

[zsdersw]

This is obviously untrue, as you are repeatedly replying to them. Unless you consider yourself a no one.

In many ways, I am.

You keep trying to shift the discussion. It is about YOU not doing what YOU want others to do. YOU want people to post mistakes/etc. in this thread and YOU did not do it YOURSELF.

You're the one who initially shifted the discussion toward me. You chose to make this about me, yet no one else did. That should tell you something...

Will reply after checking your first post edit.

So you're not going to accept my offer? So be it.

EDIT: You STILL have not done what you expect me to do. You refuse to do what you expect others to do...which is list the mistakes/etc. in this thread.

I don't "expect" you to do anything different than what you've already done in this thread: divert.

Others had no problem relaying their criticisms of Republicans and Democrats without making demands of me, so I'm not sure why I should give your demand any consideration.

 

[cybrsage]

So you're not going to accept my offer? So be it.

Your offer does nothing to address the issue I raised. It is still you saying others must do what you have not done yourself.

I don't "expect" you to do anything different than what you've already done in this thread: divert.

Others had no problem relaying their criticisms of Republicans and Democrats without making demands of me, so I'm not sure why I should give your demand any consideration.

That is because they did not bother to call you out. I did. You have been called out, deal with it.

Either happily accept that you expect others to do what you have not done yourself, or actually DO what you expect others to do. Pretty simple.

As it is right now, you are expecting others to do that which you have not done yourself. Since you have not posted a list of mistakes/etc. in the thread where you want others to do such, pretending this is not the case is pretty silly.

 

[zsdersw]

Your offer does nothing to address the issue I raised. It is still you saying others must do what you have not done yourself.

Actually, the offer would have amended the OP to include the list you requested.

That is because they did not bother to call you out. I did. You have been called out, deal with it.

Is that it, or is it that they didn't care that I didn't make a list in this thread? Not sure you can say what it was so definitively.

Either happily accept that you expect others to do what you have not done yourself, or actually DO what you expect others to do. Pretty simple.

I'm happy with everything I do and don't do on the Internet.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, the offer would have amended the OP to include the list you requested.

But only AFTER I did as you have not yet done. That is the issue, again, you expecting me to do something you have not done.

Is that it, or is it that they didn't care that I didn't make a list in this thread? Not sure you can say what it was so definitively.

Could be either way. Does not matter, as I called you out on it.

I'm happy with everything I do and don't do on the Internet.

Not a problem, just wanted to let you know you are not doing what you expect others to do. You seem surprised that anyone noticed.

 

[zsdersw]

But only AFTER I did as you have not yet done. That is the issue, again, you expecting me to do something you have not done.

You're expecting me to do something you've never done.

Could be either way. Does not matter, as I called you out on it.

... which assumes that you matter. Not a safe assumption.

Not a problem, just wanted to let you know you are not doing what you expect others to do. You seem surprised that anyone noticed.

Nothing on the Internet truly surprises me.

 

[cybrsage]

You're expecting me to do something you've never done.

YOU are the one who created the thread, I think you keep forgetting that little tidbit.

This is YOUR thread where YOU told others to do what YOU did not do yourself.

... which assumes that you matter. Not a safe assumption.

Unlike you, I do not think I am a no one. You are free to denigrate yourself, but not all others have that flaw.

 

[zsdersw]

YOU are the one who created the thread, I think you keep forgetting that little tidbit.

This is YOUR thread where YOU told others to do what YOU did not do yourself.

You are the only one who, among the people who posted, makes such a demand.

Why should I give any special consideration to your demand when plenty of other people either don't care or chose not to make a demand?

Unlike you, I do not think I am a no one. You are free to denigrate yourself, but not all others have that flaw.

On the Internet, I'm a "no one". So are you. So is everyone else on here.

 

[cybrsage]

You are the only one who, among the people who posted, makes such a demand.

Why should I give any special consideration to your demand when plenty of other people either don't care or chose not to make a demand?

Because you obviously feel it is an important issue, else you would not be arguing so fervently that it is fine for you to expect others to do what you do not do yourself.

Face it, expecting others to do what you are not doing yourself is pretty lame. I know you already said you are happy with being lame, so it is not a big deal. I am simply ensuring you remember that bit.

On the Internet, I'm a "no one". So are you. So is everyone else on here.

Feel free to have such a low opinion of yourself. I do not share you desire to make oneself meaningless. Sorry, you are on your own in your debasement and devaluation of self.

 

[zsdersw]

Because you obviously feel it is an important issue, else you would not be arguing so fervently that it is fine for you to expect others to do what you do not do yourself.

It's not really important. I enjoy arguing with you.

Face it, expecting others to do what you are not doing yourself is pretty lame. I know you already said you are happy with being lame, so it is not a big deal. I am simply ensuring you remember that bit.

Well, when my history on P&N is as well known by its regulars as it is... I'm not asking others to do what I'm not doing. I'm asking others to do what I do all the time.

Feel free to have such a low opinion of yourself. I do not share you desire to make oneself meaningless. Sorry, you are on your own in your debasement and devaluation of self.

You equate the factual statement of my and everyone else's Internet insignificance with "low opinion of yourself" and "debasement and devaluation of self"? Interesting... and laughably wrong.

There is nothing significant about the P&N section of AT forums or any of the people who post threads/comments in it. With very few exceptions, everything in P&N is either partisan drivel or tempests-in-teapots. Since this forum is, *by far*, not the only place on the Internet in which one can find such things, yes.. the forum and those who post in it, are insignificant.

 

[homercles337]

Clinton signing off on deregulating Wall Street, getting rid of Glass-Steagall. The list of dem mistakes is long, but that's the largest one in recent memory based on its tangibly negative impact.

Clinton had one foot out the door, had just been impeached for lying about a blow job, and a veto proof vote in Congress. Nothing the man did would have changed Glass-Stegall being repealed.

 

[woolfe9999]

Because you obviously feel it is an important issue, else you would not be arguing so fervently that it is fine for you to expect others to do what you do not do yourself.

Face it, expecting others to do what you are not doing yourself is pretty lame. I know you already said you are happy with being lame, so it is not a big deal. I am simply ensuring you remember that bit.




Feel free to have such a low opinion of yourself. I do not share you desire to make oneself meaningless. Sorry, you are on your own in your debasement and devaluation of self.

The trouble with your argument here is that zsdersw has already done, repeatedly, in other threads, what he is requesting that people do here. You, IIRC, have not. The point of the thread is to encourage people to think critically about the behavior of the political party that they support most. Since zsdersw doesn't seem to align any more with one than the other, I'm not sure how he is supposed to approach it himself. This thread is really about a independent calling out dems and reps to criticize their own parties. The issue that you're making here implies that you don't understand that. Or else it implies that you are diverting attention from the fact that you are unwilling or unable to criticize "your team." Which is it?

I don't agree with zsdersw all the time, but I do at least understand the point of this thread.

- wolf

 

[Anarchist420]

Repealing Glass Stegall would've been okay if they had abolished the FDIC also.

 

[hal2kilo]

Majority of Demorcrats voting to support going to war in Iraq. Unforgivable.

 

[Mursilis]

Because you obviously feel it is an important issue, else you would not be arguing so fervently that it is fine for you to expect others to do what you do not do yourself.

Face it, expecting others to do what you are not doing yourself is pretty lame. I know you already said you are happy with being lame, so it is not a big deal. I am simply ensuring you remember that bit.

Feel free to have such a low opinion of yourself. I do not share you desire to make oneself meaningless. Sorry, you are on your own in your debasement and devaluation of self.

For crying out loud, zsdersw has been pretty critical of both sides for a while now. Of course, having joined up in 11/11, you apparently don't know that. Please troll elsewhere, noob.

 

[Fern]

I'm with you on most of that, except for 3 and 5.

On means testing for SS, that whole idea makes me very irate. There are certain things I want to do in retirement, such as travel extensively, which will cost money, and so I'm putting ~10% of my salary away annually toward that goal. Of course, I'm also putting a ton into SS - over $150K so far, according to those statements they send out. I'm also pretty frugal, and live well within my means - my car is 15 years old, and I own a much smaller house than I could qualify for with my income. Sure, I'd like a bigger house and a newer car, but it's more important to save right now. Meanwhile, I know people, even members of my extended family, who put away little to nothing for retirement, preferring to live well now and claiming they "can't afford" to save for retirement. I seriously know someone who earns into six figures, put in an inground pool a few years back, and just bought a vacation home in Florida who complains he'll have to work "forever" because he can't afford to contribute to his 401K. This whole financial meltdown was fueled in part by people cashing in on rising home equity to feed consumer spending, most of which wasn't necessary and has now left a lot of people with ridiculous debt levels. Meanwhile, I have little debt and credit scores in the 800's. So if I decide to put money away now and have a fat retirement account later, I have to face the possibility of losing my SS due to means testing, and foolish people who decided to spend it all now will get SS, because they've got nothing? F#$% that!! I'm seriously tired of gov't rewarding the stupid and punishing the prudent.

You don't sound like the type I had in mind for reduced benefits under means testing. Should Mitt Romney or Bill Gates draw SS? I don't think so.

I should say my major complaint is the (false) hysteria about SS being a drag on the budget and going bankrupt.

In the first place, SS is not in the general fund/budget. It has it's own funding source.

It's not about to go bankrupt either. It's got about $4 trillion in surplus funds. Moreover, when it does eventually reach the 'crisis date' sometime in the future it won't mean that (younger) people will get no money. It means they'll get about 75% of benefits. Yet I constantly see people here stating they don't expect to see a penny of SS benefits. The only way to achieve that is to die young.

Otherwise, I object to extending the retirement date. What good is that? The poor who are 65 or older will just be shifted over to some other type govt program.

On a balanced budget, you're right that in the short term, it's perfectly OK to float a deficit for a while when the economy is in the tank and could use a stimulus. Unfortunately, however, it's become a long-term addiction for Congress. Over the past 50 years or so, the budget has been in the red more times than not, and I see little chance of that changing in the future. We simply can't keep doing this forever, and I think it's ethically wrong to leave future generations, who have no voice right now, with a heavy debt burden just so we can give ourselves gov't benefits right now.

I've been trying to come with some formulation for a solution for some time. I think we should deficit spend in a bad economy and pay down debt or save money in a good one. The hard part is quantifying that so you can put it into a law forcing Congress to do it.

Limit spending increases in hopes that in a fast growing economy revenues outpace expenditures so we get savings?

Mandate savings when GDP growth exceeds some number. E.g at 3% must be balanced above that have a % surplus?

By definition under a balanced budget we'll never pay down the national debt. It'll just stop increasing (I admit that in itself looks like a great improvement ATM).

Fern

 

[Fern]

Clinton had one foot out the door, had just been impeached for lying about a blow job, and a veto proof vote in Congress. Nothing the man did would have changed Glass-Stegall being repealed.

What do you mean by "a veto proof vote in Congress"?

If you're saying the Repubs had a sufficient majority to overrule a Clinton veto you'd be dead wrong.

The Repubs haven't had a 2/3 majority in the Senate alone since the early 1900's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Control_of_the_U.S._Senate.PNG

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

For crying out loud, zsdersw has been pretty critical of both sides for a while now. Of course, having joined up in 11/11, you apparently don't know that. Please troll elsewhere, noob.

Not in the thread where he told others to do things which he did not do himself. Did you even notice he did that?

 

[zsdersw]

Not in the thread where he told others to do things which he did not do himself. Did you even notice he did that?

The only person who refuses to look at what I've done in the aggregate and, instead, focuses on one thread... to divert and avoid doing what he doesn't want to do... is you. Everyone else either posted, read the thread and ignored it, or didn't look at the thread at all.

If I've been nothing but a shill for or parrot of either party and not been critical of both in the threads/posts I've made since I started posting in P&N, more P&N regulars would have said as much in this thread. Instead, we only have you.

Everyone else knows, if they bother to notice, what my criticisms of both parties are and don't childishly demand that I put them in this thread as a condition of getting them to share their opinions.

 

[Mursilis]

You don't sound like the type I had in mind for reduced benefits under means testing. Should Mitt Romney or Bill Gates draw SS? I don't think so.

True enough, but how much is that going to save? And once means testing starts, how do we know where it will end? At one time, proponents of the income tax said it only target the top 10% of all earners, and now it targets everyone.

I should say my major complaint is the (false) hysteria about SS being a drag on the budget and going bankrupt.

In the first place, SS is not in the general fund/budget. It has it's own funding source.

The Supreme Court has said otherwise. Of course, the money is already spent, regardless.

I've been trying to come with some formulation for a solution for some time. I think we should deficit spend in a bad economy and pay down debt or save money in a good one. The hard part is quantifying that so you can put it into a law forcing Congress to do it.

Limit spending increases in hopes that in a fast growing economy revenues outpace expenditures so we get savings?

Mandate savings when GDP growth exceeds some number. E.g at 3% must be balanced above that have a % surplus?

By definition under a balanced budget we'll never pay down the national debt. It'll just stop increasing (I admit that in itself looks like a great improvement ATM).

Fern

Solving the deficit issue is tough, no doubt. Maybe require a supermajority to authorize spending in excess of revenues? Limit how long bonds can be floated? I don't have any solid solutions myself, but it's a problem we're clearly not addressing.